Oral gifts are impermissible under law as per the Transfer of Property Act, which invalidates claims supporting such assertions.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for partition has come up against the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, in O.S.No.442/2015 and the Additional District Court–II, Thalassery, in A.S.No.58/2017.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff by name Paru and her two siblings. It is claimed that there was a partition among the members in the year 1972 and as per the partition deed, properties shown as Item Nos.5 and 6 of the plaint were allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had gifted 1/3^rd share in the above mentioned properties received by her in the partition to the defendant, who is his sister’s son. In the year 2005, Item No.5 of the partition deed was partitioned among the parties and Item No.6 was not partitioned and the mother of the plaintiff died on 23.08.2011. Since the plaintiff was not interested in holding the properties is joint possession with the defendant, the suit was instituted.

2.2. The defendant resisted the claim contending that in the year 1972, the defendant had received 1/3^rd right over the plaint schedule property by way of a gift executed by Paru and there was a suitable arrangement between the defendant for an exchange of marriage to see that the plantiff is getting good alliance. The defendant married the sister of the husband of the plaintiff in exchange and also met with the expenses of the marriage. Out of love and affection, Paru had given the plaint schedule property to the defendant on an oral gift. Therefore, the claim was resisted. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 and A2 were produced and on behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B8 were produced. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the defendant on the basis of an oral gift cannot sustain inasmuch as the oral gift is not permissible. Alternatively, the defendant also contended that the claim of the plaintiff, if any, has been lost by ouster. The Trial Court further found that the plea of oral gift as well as ouster will not go together and it is mutually destructive. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed partitioning the property into three equal shares, out of which two shares were allotted to the plaintiff and one share to the defendant. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred A.S.No.58/2017 before the Additional District Court-II, Thalassery, which was also dismissed by judgment dated

12.11.2019 and hence, the appeal.

3. Heard, Sri.Binoy Ram V. - learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.M.A.Zohra – learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal. As rightly found by the Trial Court, plea of oral gift is impermissible under law in view of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 . Similarly, the plea of ouster as an alternate plea set up by the defendant and plea of title based on the oral gift will not go together and it is mutually destructive. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court as affirmed by the District Court. Resultantly, finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.